I guess im the only one who REALLY doesnt care about them covering real stories. It makes no difference to me at all which stories they cover, if theyre real or fake, etc. I just want to see how the characters react to them and how the news story is molded into an episode.

You don't mind that Sorkin beats the viewer across the face to point out the error of the real media's ways by constantly showing us how everything should have been handled? That's pretty damn distracting from the on-screen drama.

It's like the characters aren't used as characters, but rather as a bunch of variables he has changed from the original, real-life version of news coverage to teach us all a valuable lesson. Only problem is, in many of these cases, Sorkin's idealistic alternate news report wouldn't have been possible. Hindsight changes everything and watching a version of events as portrayed by a news broadcast where everything plays out like a final draft of history, rather than the in-progress, uncertain and ever-changing chaos that it actually is, doesn't make for as satisfying of a show as Sorkin seems to think. That's not realistically the way the industry works.

It's true that all of us pretty much agree with the bulk of Sorkin's commentary about the media and Will's desire to "civilize" people. But the way he's chosen to convey that message is just so, so obnoxious, heavy-handed and overt. It's arrogant to sit back and cherry-pick from real-life instances of bad media and then proceed to give viewers a lecture about why it's bad. Subtlety is a hallmark of good drama in most cases. Sorkin has none whatsoever.

I did like the last two episodes of The Newsroom more than the first two so I'll stick it out for the season. I can definitely see where the criticism stems from though. One thing that bugged me was that they all came in to the office on a Saturday morning just so Dev Patel could give them his presentation on Big Foot? Then while they're there a big story just happens to break. It just seemed a little sloppy but maybe I'm nitpicking.

I thought Newsroom was one of the best shows on TV, but last night's episode was kind of disappointing.

I like it for the most part but yea Ive noticed a few times where she's making some really weird facial expressions. She looks like a freakin' psycho especially in that scene where she has a panic attack, and the one where her and Jim leave the Bigfoot meeting and argue.

Can someone who enjoys the show please tell me how they reacted to the end of Episode Four of The Newsroom.

I'm really confused why the audience is expected to view News Night's refusal to prematurely report Gifford's death as triumphant or inspiring. Clearly that's what Sorkin was going for with the big musical build up with the Coldplay song and Don's big, out-of-character line about doctors pronouncing people dead, not newsmen.

Is it supposed to be a feel-good moment with an emotional payoff for viewers? Because that's pretty twisted given that the subject of the news they're reporting remains that a half dozen people, including a girl that I believe was 9 years old, died at the hand of a lunatic. This is a big reason why writing episodes around actual U.S. news from the past is so troublesome.

The whole circumstance just seem tone-deaf to me. It's a really bad choice of real-life news events to use to manufacture a moment where the characters can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. And having that network executive guy shouting at them to pronounce her dead was just ridiculous and over-the-top.

Also, the whole self-satisfaction the characters take in what they'd just done (or rather, did not do) doesn't make sense. They wouldn't in-the-moment know the significance of what had just occurred. Bah, the whole scene is just bad.

You don't mind that Sorkin beats the viewer across the face to point out the error of the real media's ways by constantly showing us how everything should have been handled? That's pretty damn distracting from the on-screen drama.

I personally thought that was a subtle way to mock the erection that news people seem to get from the fact that they are "fact givers" to the average public.

I'm not going to name any names, but Will McAvoy reminds me of a major news anchor (or two) in a whole lot of ways.

Am I the only one that sees this?

__________________
I was gone for 2 months doing things I can't talk about. It might happen again, but that's just the nature of what I do and who I am.

I personally thought that was a subtle way to mock the erection that news people seem to get from the fact that they are "fact givers" to the average public.

I'm not going to name any names, but Will McAvoy reminds me of a major news anchor (or two) in a whole lot of ways.

Am I the only one that sees this?

Keith Olberman? Yeah, but Sorkin denies vehemently that he's based on him or any one person. And there is absolutely NOTHING subtle about the way Sorkin has approached mocking and criticizing the media.

Can someone who enjoys the show please tell me how they reacted to the end of Episode Four of The Newsroom.

I'm really confused why the audience is expected to view News Night's refusal to prematurely report Gifford's death as triumphant or inspiring. Clearly that's what Sorkin was going for with the big musical build up with the Coldplay song and Don's big, out-of-character line about doctors pronouncing people dead, not newsmen.

Is it supposed to be a feel-good moment with an emotional payoff for viewers? Because that's pretty twisted given that the subject of the news they're reporting remains that a half dozen people, including a girl that I believe was 9 years old, died at the hand of a lunatic. This is a big reason why writing episodes around actual U.S. news from the past is so troublesome.

The whole circumstance just seem tone-deaf to me. It's a really bad choice of real-life news events to use to manufacture a moment where the characters can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. And having that network executive guy shouting at them to pronounce her dead was just ridiculous and over-the-top.

Also, the whole self-satisfaction the characters take in what they'd just done (or rather, did not do) doesn't make sense. They wouldn't in-the-moment know the significance of what had just occurred. Bah, the whole scene is just bad.

i enjoy the show but agree with your post. sorkin was hammering home the fact that journalism today values breaking stories over reporting quality news. i thought it was pretty insensitive to the actual tragedy too.

there's nothing good on the tele for me right now except BB. the newsroom keeps me entertained. i tried political animals but i couldn't get halfway through it.

i enjoy the show but agree with your post. sorkin was hammering home the fact that journalism today values breaking stories over reporting quality news. i thought it was pretty insensitive to the actual tragedy too.

there's nothing good on the tele for me right now except BB. the newsroom keeps me entertained. i tried political animals but i couldn't get halfway through it.

I watch the Newsroom because its higher quality TV than other shows. I watch it on demand the next day. I'm pretty much caught up on every other decent show out there, so this show fills a gap in my tv schedule. The show reminds me of The Office, but only if it were written by the people who did Frasier. I don't really watch it for humor or indepth analysis. It has a higher ceiling than most shows and it is easy enough to become invested and knowledgeable about each character's motivations.

I would say that its a slick time-killer that provides a different enough of a feeling to distinguish it from the other shows that I could be watching. The ease of HBO on demand/Go also helps a ton.

When you say "higher quality," are you talking about the art direction, cinematography, production value and maybe the acting? Because I'll obviously agree with you there. There's nothing to really complain about in that regard. The show looks like a high quality show.

But then again, so did AMC's The Killing, and I think most people were compelled to stick with that show longer than The Newsroom before the whole thing unraveled.

Can someone who enjoys the show please tell me how they reacted to the end of Episode Four of The Newsroom.

I'm really confused why the audience is expected to view News Night's refusal to prematurely report Gifford's death as triumphant or inspiring. Clearly that's what Sorkin was going for with the big musical build up with the Coldplay song and Don's big, out-of-character line about doctors pronouncing people dead, not newsmen.

Is it supposed to be a feel-good moment with an emotional payoff for viewers? Because that's pretty twisted given that the subject of the news they're reporting remains that a half dozen people, including a girl that I believe was 9 years old, died at the hand of a lunatic. This is a big reason why writing episodes around actual U.S. news from the past is so troublesome.

The whole circumstance just seem tone-deaf to me. It's a really bad choice of real-life news events to use to manufacture a moment where the characters can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. And having that network executive guy shouting at them to pronounce her dead was just ridiculous and over-the-top.

Also, the whole self-satisfaction the characters take in what they'd just done (or rather, did not do) doesn't make sense. They wouldn't in-the-moment know the significance of what had just occurred. Bah, the whole scene is just bad.

I understand the complaint but I like to see that scene in the context of the characters. Was the network exec over the top sure, but, I think that is the theme of the whole show. That the main characters are rebelling against what is perceived as a horribly corrupt system. I have no issue though with some of his comments on the 24 hour news cycle and its bias toward sensationalism and a rush to get the information out as fast as they can possibly get it out there.

__________________
Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji

When you say "higher quality," are you talking about the art direction, cinematography, production value and maybe the acting? Because I'll obviously agree with you there. There's nothing to really complain about in that regard. The show looks like a high quality show.

Pretty much, its all production quality. It also fulfills my need for a tv show that is similar to The Office, but not be The Office. I loved that show, but it died for me a long time ago. The Newsroom is like having a new girlfriend and going over the introductory stage again.

Again, accessibility is everything for me with this show. The fact that I don't have to DVR anything, and can just access every episode on demand is huge.

I understand the complaint but I like to see that scene in the context of the characters. Was the network exec over the top sure, but, I think that is the theme of the whole show. That the main characters are rebelling against what is perceived as a horribly corrupt system. I have no issue though with some of his comments on the 24 hour news cycle and its bias toward sensationalism and a rush to get the information out as fast as they can possibly get it out there.

I don't have a problem with this either (same is true of many of the points he's making about media weaknesses). I just think he's doing a really, really bad job of concealing those ideas into the framework of his television show and allowing any other dramatic element of the show to be noticed because of it. The show feels like a lecture and the audience doesn't have to do any independent thinking to realize what Sorkin is arguing. All tell, no show.

Xio, can you please stop reading Alan Sepinwall and then regurgitating his opinions as yours?

Thanks!

I don't think I took ownership of any criticisms as solely mine, though I object to your suggestion that I didn't notice the problems I've spelled out on my own. Criticisms of the show are prevalent, and obviously overlapping. You're more than welcome to ignore me and everyone you disagree with.